Section 263 revision fails where the Assessing Officer made enquiries and the property sale arose through SARFAESI proceedings.

Section 263 revision is not justified where the Assessing Officer has made specific enquiries, considered the assessee's explanation, and adopted one plausible view. The Tribunal noted that the land was sold by the secured lender under SARFAESI proceedings, so the assessee's sale consideration arose from a bank-driven sale process and the assumption that section 50C had been ignored was not enough to show error and prejudice to the Revenue. A mere difference of opinion, or a claim of inadequate enquiry rather than no enquiry, cannot sustain revision. The revisional order was therefore held unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the assessment was completed after enquiry and the land in question had been sold by the secured lender under SARFAESI proceedings, making the application of section 50C doubtful.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had issued specific queries on capital gains and the assessee had furnished a detailed reply explaining that the land was sold by SBI under SARFAESI proceedings and that the sale consideration reflected the price obtained in the bank-driven sale process. The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where the Assessing Officer makes an enquiry and adopts one of the possible views, the order cannot be revised merely because the Commissioner prefers a different view. The distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry is material, and revision is not justified for a fuller or deeper enquiry when some enquiry has in fact been made. On the peculiar facts, the Tribunal found that the sale was not by the assessee but by the secured lender under SARFAESI, and therefore the PCIT's assumption that section 50C had been wrongly ignored did not justify revision.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was unsustainable and the revisional order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made enquiry and taken a plausible view, because revision requires a demonstrable error causing prejudice to the Revenue and not merely an inadequate enquiry or a different possible view.

---